Principles, policies and practices – Gleanings from the 2011 work on Internet governance principles – PL 07 2012

From EuroDIG Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

15 June 2012 | 16:30-17:30
Programme overview 2012


Key Participants

  • Wolfgang Kleinwächter, University of Aarhus
  • Markus Kummer, Internet Society
  • Maciej Tomaszewski, European Commission


  • Avri Doria, Independent Researcher


Provided by: Caption First, Inc., P.O. Box 3066, Monument, CO 80132, Phone: +001-719-481-9835,

This text is being provided in a rough draft format. Communication Access Realtime Translation (CART) is provided in order to facilitate communication accessibility and may not be a totally verbatim record of the proceedings.

>> This session will be principle, policies and practices, and I’ll give the floor to the moderator, Avri Doria.

>> AVRI DORIA: In this session, the long title was “Principles, policy, and practices, gleanings from the 2011 work on Internet Governance principles,” as many of you probably know.

Lots of people have been coming out with lots of principles over the last year. If you even looked at the few that were listed in the resources, there is principles from civil society, APCs were there, there’s principles from Dynamic Coalitions for Internet Rights and Principles, there are several from the Internet Society. Governments like India, China, Russia have been coming out with principles.

As I said, Internet Society, Commissioner Kroes as given us sets of principles and even in her speech referred to the dichotomy that we are seeing between the current model, the multistakeholder bottom up model of governance on the Internet, and a more oversight oriented model of the Internet. We will try to look at that dichotomy and asked people to take a PCP view on it. And our two PCP speakers are Markus Kummer from Internet Society and Maciej Tomaszewski from the Europe Commission. And they will speak three times on basically three issues.

The first one being a rules behavior, security, codes of conduct, and principles for Internet Governance Internet Governance Forum. A necessity or a threat. And insofar as rules and principles are necessary, how should they be established? And the third question is insofar as rules and principles are necessary, what is the appropriate format and balance for such rules?

In addition to the point/counterpoint, 24 speaker slots were sort of opened at a minute each for people to volunteer and make one minute presentations. Eleven of those slots were taken. So after they speak I’ll be introducing the folks that are doing that. I ask those folks to come closer to the front, so it will be easy to get them the microphone.

After we have gone all through that, Wolfgang Kleinwachter will be giving a synthesis of what we heard.

If there is time before Wolfgang, we will also go for questions. There is a one-minute clock there. So that will be for the people doing the one minute. But if we have time for other question, I’ll also ask people to keep it to the one minute.

So that having been said, I think it’s just time to start. The first question was are rules of behavior, security, codes of conduct and principles for rules of Internet governance a necessity or a threat? So the point is rules of behavior, security, codes of conduct and principles are a necessity. And so I would like to give that one to the European Commission. And could you please take three minutes to sort of give us the reason why it’s a necessity, if it is.

>> MACIEJ TOMASZEWSKI: I would not say it’s a necessity. I would say this is something that might be useful. We are talking about very different instruments. We are talking about Internet principles, which apparently have very different roles that, for instance, codes of conducts.

I would say that for Internet principles, they are extremely useful in a way that the Internet Governance Forum is still a new domain. It’s a new way of governing very interesting policy areas. And I would say that because of this multistakeholder approach that we have, it’s very useful to have concrete discussion on how we would like to see how Internet should be functioning and how it should be developed.

So I think that Internet principles are useful to have this discussion between public authorities and private sector and civil society.

As to the code of conduct, I see the role a little bit different. Because, for instance, we already discussed those kinds of issues during the sessions today. And also because of this interesting architecture of the Internet Governance Forum. For instance, private entities become responsible for human rights. And here it is very useful, also, to have some kind of guidance, how private sector, which is extremely important in Internet Governance Forum, how it can contribute ensuring that private – that human rights are respected.

So I don’t see a threat in Internet principles code of conduct that are by definition not binding. As a necessity, I also don’t think that there is an actual necessity, but I would say that it’s something that is very useful.

>> AVRI DORIA: Thank you. Markus, could you –

>> MARKUS KUMMER: I’m supposed to take the contrarian view.

>> AVRI DORIA: The Internet view.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Well, I would also be saying that it’s not quite as clear cut; it’s not as black and white. But let me start by picking up what the minister said this morning. It’s worked well. It’s developed and it’s worked well. So before we do anything, I think it’s also important that we think about unintended consequences when we come to working out principle, code of conduct, whatever.

And it’s not so that the Internet has developed outside any law. I mean, there was the declaration of independence, of cyberspace in the ’90s by John Perry Barlow, but we have to recognize that the Internet operates in a given legal setting. And several speakers said, especially the younger speakers, there is no difference between the online world and the off line world. Yes? The difference is we have a medium that does not recognize national borders. That is a challenge.

But having said all of that, there have always been codes of behavior going back to John Postl. He said “be liberal in what you accept. Be conservative in what you send out.” And the Internet community, to a large extent, adheres to these principles.

Now, of course, with two billion users, it’s not anymore the small community it was when we started and we have to be aware of that. There has been a proliferation of declarations of principles. And most of them from the OECD to the G8, and most of them are of fairly good. However, there is also the potential danger that when you start a negotiating process, that the result may actually be worse than what you already have.

You mentioned human rights. On human rights we don’t need new instruments. We have the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. That applies to the Internet world as it does to the off line world.

And, yes, if we do have new principles, as long as we maintain the open unencumbered nature of the Internet and keep the multistakeholder character of the Internet model, the open policy and standard developing processes where anyone who is interested in participating can make his or her voice heard, then that is fine. But these are some of, I would say, the core principles. We should make sure that we keep them and don’t forget when we move forward in discussing any possible new instruments.

>> AVRI DORIA: Thank you. So with nuance, we find that perhaps we’re not that far apart yet, but that is the lovely thing about nuance is you can’t really tell.

The next part of this I was going to basically ask the various people who volunteered to give the one-minute talks, their contribution, I think the person that does the clock will do the clock. And the first speaker we have – well, there is a clock. There was. I’m sure it will come back.

If not, I’ll look at my clock and I’ll be the clock. So the first speaker we had was civil society speaker, Vladimir Radunovic, and I’m not sure I pronounced it correctly, from the DiploFoundation, who will give the first one-minute discussion on this issue of the necessity of principles.

>> VLADIMIR RADUNOVIC: Thank you. I have the privilege not to have the clock, so maybe I’ll be over – this I don’t see.

No. It doesn’t matter.

Anyhow, at the time when Internet was invented, I’m sure Bob and Vint didn’t have in mind what is built today. It did not take into consideration the human nature and how we would use it in the future.

At the moment technically it works. Fortunately or unfortunately, there is a huge additional level than a technical one. Internet is not a technical miracle anymore. It is a – it’s a miracle of society. Now, the society has been regulated by the principles to some extent. This is the way how we function. We need some kind of guidelines and regulations in order not to misuse the small little unlucky Internet who did not expect it.

I’m in favor of principles. I’m not in favor of a control. I’m in favor of a dialogue, but some kind of principles especially in the areas which need protection and which reflect to the way the society works.

Thank you.

>> AVRI DORIA: Thank you. And thank you for keeping it within the minute.

For the next speaker we have someone who will speak with the perspective of Government and intergovernmental organisations, Council of Europe Elvana Thaci. Thank you.

>> ELVANA THACI: Thank you. I’ll just bring in the perspective of the Council of Europe. In the Council of Europe, which has 47 Member States, it was felt that it is desirable to affirm the Internet Governance Forum principles, which affirm the values of our organisation: Human rights, democracy and rule of law. So it’s not only about human rights, it’s about democracy as well, or all of them.

It was felt necessary to build on what was understood in different communities as Internet Governance Forum principles, and all that was brought together in a set of ten principles which was adopted by 47 Member States – and I underline that.

So I’m not going to sit here and say whether they are necessary or not. In the Council of Europe it was felt by 47 Member States that it is necessary to affirm the values of our organisation in the Internet Governance Forum. Thank you.


>> AVRI DORIA: I didn’t know we had a harp at the end. Thank you.

The next speaker from the technical community, Nigel Hickson, from ICANN.

Do we have Nigel?

We do not have Nigel.

>> I think I saw him leaving, actually.

>> AVRI DORIA: Well then. Moving on.

A speaker from the business sector, Marco Pacini, from Google. And if I mispronounced your name, apologies and correct me. Is Marco here?

>> MARCO PACINI: It was perfect indeed. I will keep it very, very short.

I’m sure happy to be here. We are a strong believer in the multistakeholder approach to Internet Governance Forum. And we want to do all the best to keep it as it is and hopefully to improve it.

In terms of more participation for more stakeholders and more inclusion of different participants in the debate, we all know that there will be – this will be the debate for the second part of the year, looking at the WCAT conference in Dubai, and we believe that all of us who care about the Internet Governance Forum should stand up and do their best for an open Internet Governance Forum.

>> AVRI DORIA: The next speaker is Fara Yassat. Is Fara – thank you.

>> FARA JASET: Hi. My name is – is this working?

I’m Fara Jaset and I’m from an initiative about young people combating hate speech online. We believe that incorporating the principles of human rights, as mentioned by the speaker before, is a necessity in our discourse about Internet Governance Forum. It’s not about censorship. It’s about encouraging a human rights culture online.

And we think that – well, I’m a blogger myself. And I think blogging and using media is a perfect platform for discourse and creativity, particularly amongst young people. So what our project wants is to empower young people from Europe to campaign against hate speech online and to encourage the fundamental principles that we all agree on, purveyed the Internet space.

Thank you.

>> AVRI DORIA: Thank you.

The next speaker from the technical community is Ana Olmos from the Polytechnical Madrid. She is there.

>> ANA OLMOS: Well, I will stick to the key focus of the questions in the programme. Principles, yes, it’s a positive word. I think it is something we want to have principles in many areas of our lives. Also, in the way Internet affects us. But I think whether this becomes a necessity or a threat, it depends also on how we answer the other two questions, which are who should set such rules? And what is appropriate for modern balance?

So I would be very wary of changing radically the way we are actually regulating and making policy, but I would be glad to see some guiding principles that are widespread and taken into account by those who are already doing work in this line.

>> AVRI DORIA: Thank You.

The next speaker we have is a remote speaker. Speaking on behalf of the business sector, Desiree Milosevic from Afilias.

>> AUDIENCE: No video, just audio.

>> AVRI DORIA: Go ahead, Desiree. No audio yet.

>> Can you hear me?

>> AVRI DORIA: Yes, please.

>> DESIREE MILOSEVIC: Good afternoon. My name is Desiree Milosevic, from AFIALIAS. We are the first European company that joined the initiative, because we felt the need for more cooperation and guidelines in exhausting human rights on the Internet.

Soft laws such as principles and codes of conduct are both a necessity and a threat at the same time to liberal governance of the net. They are a necessity because we as stakeholders need them to provide us as direction. We need them as a manual how to cooperate together. And they are a threat because if they are too loose, they become meaningless. And if they are too rigid, the stakeholders can chose to ignore them.


We need to be really, really careful.

>> AVRI DORIA: Thank you.

I think that’s the first question, so that was the last of the speakers on that one.

I think the first question was interesting. We almost have a group mind here that has developed through EuroDIG of we need principles. We need guidance. They are necessary. They are threats. And we’re nuanced. So I think it’s good that we have a second question. Otherwise, we could just all leave and be happy.

And the second question was given that principles, and I can say, I had said, insofar as rules, principles, et cetera, are necessary, how should they be established? On one side there is a set of multistakeholder organisations that should be responsible for establishing any of the rules, sets of principles, et cetera. And the counterpoint would be that Government should supply the principles and provide oversight for governance.

Markus, I’d like to go to you in terms of a nuanced approach to the multistakeholder process.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: As always, the devil is in the detail and the path to hell is paved with good intentions. The Internet is a complex eco system, and by fiddling around with it, a bit here and there, you might risk endangering the whole system.

Let me give one example. The Internet has allowed innovation without permission. This was a key thing that came across in the session on net neutrality, and that point was made eloquently. Innovation without permission is not possible in an intergovernmental environment. The Governments say yes or no.

And the Internet would not be what it is if the engineers working in the Internet engineering task force had to ask the Government each time: Are we allowed to do that?

So this is, I think, a very first – I would not say hurdle, but the first element that we have to consider to make sure that we keep this innovation friendly environment and don’t kill it with too much Government influence. And that is the logical follow-up. Whatever we do, it has to be done in an open, inclusive, transparent multistakeholder environment, and these principles would have to reaffirm that basically open collaborative Internet model. I said that in my first intervention.

The key is the open policy and standards developing processes that will need to be maintained if we want to maintain the ability of the Internet to innovate also for future generations.

Let’s not forget that the Internet is still relatively young. And scientists have compared it to a – maybe a teenager. But it’s not yet fully adult and there is still tremendous potential for development. And by being too rigid, we risk to stifle this future development.

So, multistakeholder is the A and the O.

>> AVRI DORIA: Thank you. And if you could give us sort of a counterpoint to that.

>> MACIEJ TOMASZEWSKI: I actually agree with what Markus said. Sorry; I agree.

>> AVRI DORIA: The group mind is good. I like that.

>> MACIEJ TOMASZEWSKI: I fully agree that Internet is a new tool. It’s very innovative. And it should be absolutely open to the multistakeholder approach from the beginning to the end. Meaning that also when we discuss how Internet should function, how it should be governed, this multistakeholder approach would be a guideline for us, how to have a discussion.

So when we think about the development of different codes of conduct, of different documents which might have an impact on the functioning of Internet, it’s really important that we could have a thorough discussion between different stakeholders, and then to elaborate together via the final text.

I think it’s also very important that we have this opportunity for having different Internet principles. As I’ve already mentioned at the beginning, I consider this Internet governance as a new policy area which has particularities. And that’s why it’s important to allow different stakeholders to express how Internet should look like, and maybe first of all even not even to say what – how Internet should look like, but to allow us for a thorough discussion and to help us to create a common space for a discussion, for allowing us to define – to come up with definitions which afterwards could help us in a more detailed discussion about Internet Governance Forum.

>> AVRI DORIA: Thank you.

So, once again, we’re at a good nuanced point. We don’t really seem to have a strong call for oversight yet, which I think is marvelous. However, and I’ve got two speakers that signed up to make one minute contributions. But then I’d really like to ask the people sitting here that if there is anyone in the house that can make a one-minute and perhaps even more than one person who can make a one-minute statement about why a certain amount of governmental oversight might be needed, I would like to offer you a chance. If there is no one, I can go away happy saying there will be no Internet Government oversight in Europe and that would be a nice thing to say. But I would like to give somebody an opportunity to argue for that position.

So the first speaker I have now from the business sector is Teresa Swinehart.

I’m not shouting, there is recording, there is remote listening, there is –

>> TERESA SWINEHART: It’s challenging, because I’m going to end up agreeing. I think one of the things, though, to your question on Governments, is they are actually involved in the multistakeholder dialogues that are occurring. And so they are part of that process. So when we look at principles, we have a whole range of them out there, and I think Markus and others touched upon this at the beginning. We have the principles reflected in the Tunis agenda, the Council of Europe, the OECD, the Brazilian Internet principle. We have a wide range of principles that are happening. And we’re seeing an evolution and a trend emerging of dialogues around these principles at national and regional IGFs and the global IGF. So we have a possibility to reach more global awareness and consensus through perhaps sharing around exchanging views and building global understanding. And maybe this provides an opportunity towards a multistakeholder approach and a coalescence around how these might work together. Whether individually or separately.


>> AVRI DORIA: That harp is really quite nice.

And the next speaker I have on this is Bertrand Chapelle, from the International Diplomatic Academy, speaking from a civil society perspective or the multistakeholder perspective.

>> BERTRAND CHAPELLE: Thanks. I want to repeat the distinction and share the distinction that I made earlier between the governance of the infrastructure and the governance of the usage. IE, the governance on the Internet and governance on the Internet.

Just as in the Democratic system, we have a separation of powers, here we have a separation of layer, or distinction of layers. And each layer has its own governance architecture, with sometimes rules when there is an overlap.

The thing is, the principle, the common principle that all the documents that were adopted last year share is the notion of multistakeholder governance, which is the principle that any person or entity has the right to participate in the governance processes, dealing with the issues that they are concerned with. And this means that for the governance of the infrastructure, we have this institutional ecosystem that works very well, thank you.

However, I do believe that we do not have the equivalent for the governance on the Internet and of the usage.


And that we need to develop spaces and new institutions to be able to avoid the restrictions that are going to be put in place. So we need to be innovative.

>> AVRI DORIA: Thank you.

Now, those were the speakers that I had signed up. As I mentioned, I was going to take an opportunity to go. We have, for example, thank you, we have, for example, the statements that came out of India, the statements that came out of Russia, the statements that came out of China. So please introduce yourself. And take the minute.

>> AUDIENCE: I signed up, but I don’t know why I’m missing on the list. Just to excuse us –

>> AVRI DORIA: Sorry.

>> AUDIENCE: Just to excuse for the Governments. First of all, we do understand that after year 2008, after the collapse of the Lehman Brothers, the role of the Governments was on the rise and big banks and financial institutions came to them bowing for financial aid. So that is why Governments are tempted to be more assertive and in control in the driving seat as far as the Internet is concerned in particular.

Second, the new economic powers want to establish themselves on the International arena. That is why they are here. That’s why the code of self conducts and that’s why they brought their legacy, which is different from Europe’s. And I believe that the prescriptions are the same from the Cold War, this is engagement, dialogue, patience, wealth first of all, and I believe that pendulum some day will swing back and the Governments will take that role in the multistakeholder process.

I mean, their typical role.


>> AVRI DORIA: Thank you.

I saw a hand of Vladimir, basically signed up for two and I told him he couldn’t have two because I was sure we would have too many people. Take another.

>> VLADIMIR RADUNOVIC: We have chosen our Governments. We voted for them. We have confidence in them. The nonDemocratic system, that is a different thing, but it doesn’t have anything to do with the Internet; that is democracy. But if we chose them, why don’t we trust them?

>> AVRI DORIA: Thank you.

So nobody from the technical community spoke on that one. You wanted to speak on this particular issue? Later. No. – on this particular issue?

>> OXANA. Yes, a question from remote participation in the Ukraine. It was asked that during morning plenary session but, unfortunately, they could not deliver it. It’s about new initiative of Ukrainian Government, which ignores the European Dialogue. But recently the Minister of Internal Affairs of Ukraine expressed wishes about the regulation of access of citizens to the Internet. He said you have already made such an effort to adjust. It’s a translation of his word. What is – ICANN can – you can lead the ministers to make the appropriate decisions by the cabinet. Now, there are steps now.

And the question from the remote hub: Do you support such initiatives in Europe? Thank you.

>> AVRI DORIA: Okay. Thank you.

So I think now – and that came within the minute.

Okay. So now I would move to the last of the questions, and I actually think it’s good now that we have started to see that even though the European Dialogue on Internet Governance Forum has gotten very nuanced, that there are still positions out there that are perhaps a little less nuanced. So insofar as rules and principles are necessary, what is the appropriate balance and format for such rules?

And so basically, the first point of this is they should exist, but they should be mostly guidelines and referred to as appropriate when necessary.

And the counterpoint would be that they should be authoritative and there should be enforcement. And of course looking for a nuanced position on them.

So Markus, I’d like to give you a chance to take the point on that one.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Well, you would not be surprised that I take the soft line, and whatever should come in should be as light as possible.

Just to react to some of the interventions, Bertrand made an interesting point but he was cut off as his minute was over.

>> AVRI DORIA: He went a little further.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Well, the question is, do we need new institutions? You know, for all of the issues for governance, Internet Governance Forum, which is not related to the infrastructure, you basically have existing institutions. We talked a lot about digital content, Intellectual Property, that we do have an institution. But the problem is all these institutions were set up a long time ago, before the Internet age, and they have not adapted to the Internet. And the Tunis agenda was actually fairly revolutionary by recognizing the principle of the multistakeholder approach and the inclusiveness and the openness and the transparency of all the processes related to the Internet Governance Forum. And many of these institutions are actually dealing with Internet Governance issues.

But they are not dealing with it in an open and inclusive manner, and often the stakeholders are cut out.

And again, the question is, why don’t we trust Governments? Yes, we do trust Governments, but it’s up to a point. And the point is where it comes to the understanding of the underlying technology.

Quite often Governments, there is a problem out there. We saw that in the UK, the London riots last year, the UK is basically an impeccably Democratic country, but there is a problem and who is to blame? It’s the Internet, because people use social media. So “let’s turn it off. Kill the switch” I don’t think is an option. But it’s just choice. When it comes to the Internet, Governments tend to have knee jerk reactions or don’t understand the unintended consequences a decision may have. And that is basically where I’m afraid. And there are Governments that are not Democratic. They have other intentions where surveillance of citizens is of more importance than actually guaranteeing their Democratic rights.

That came in a little bit in the discussion here. We are in a nice environment, we share the same values, and that’s why the discussion goes very nicely. But those among us who lived through the WSIS times, the veterans, we know how difficult this can be – well, you know, there were those who wanted actually to negotiate Internet communications rights. Seasoned experts warned us don’t open what you already have.


And we have the Universal Declaration for Human Rights; that’s as good as it gets. Anything we would negotiate from scratch now would not be as good. Hence my conservative approach.

>> AVRI DORIA: Thank you.

>> MACIEJ TOMASZEWSKI: I would say that obviously it depends. Well, I don’t like the word oversight because I feel like it has an implication that Governments would like to have complete control over the Internet. And this is not the aim. As I said, multistakeholder, multistakeholder approach is a base. But still, multistakeholder approach means that we should act in our respective roles, and private sector should be allowed to – for ensuring the functioning of the Internet.

We also have certain responsibilities for people who elected those Governments. And that’s why we also should have a say on certain issues which are related to Governments.

So I would say that we should not create immediately some kind of authoritative guidelines. We should not have any oversight. That is excluded. But we should have the possibility to act if there is an action which requires the action of Governments, and which cannot be fulfilled by the private sector.

>> AVRI DORIA: Okay. Thank you.

That and – and some points that hopefully people will get back to, that had one of my favorite topics in it, the one that usually makes me rave, but when I’m a moderator I won’t rave, which is the roles and responsibilities, which is one of those things that so far I think it’s only the Government that has defined the roles and responsibilities for all the other stakeholders. I had one speaker who signed up on us and then I’ll look for that, and that is Viktor Szabados – I don’t know if I pronounced that correctly – Association of Student Organisations in Hungary. So where is Viktor? Is Viktor here? I don’t see Viktor.

So in that case I see a hand – you were the first hand I saw. So please take a minute. Sebastian was the second hand. You’re the third hand.

>> AUDIENCE: Coming back to the question you actually asked, and then maybe I can provoke you to rave. We don’t want oversight. But the question is: Who would enforce rules on rights of citizens? Who can sort of regulate companies when it comes to access questions? Who except Governments could do that? So there is a vital role we would have to play.

And I think the comment that provoked me was in terms that maybe the Governments don’t understand the techniques underlying. Then help us to understand it. That is one point.

And the other one is it’s not black and white. There is no Internet community and then there are the Governments. Because you have stakeholders, ISPs, you have users, different people who are all from a different angle address the Government and tell them do this with the Internet. A Government naturally has an overall responsibility for society to ensure that all these positions are balanced and reflected. So it’s not black and white.


>> AVRI DORIA: It’s not black and white. Yet Governments do seem to have a primary responsibility for making sure we behave.

Sebastian, you were the next hand I saw. Please.

>> SEBASTIAN BACHOLLET: Thank you. Eventually we will live in a country where we can trust our Governments. But the Governments that we’re electing, we don’t take every position on any subject that they will have to face during their next five or six or seven years to be sure that we agree with. We agree with globally Government, and then the role of the Government, it’s to allow each and every stakeholder to be part of the discussion at the national, regional and worldwide level.

And we don’t need any oversight. We need their help to organise the discussion. Thank you.

>> AVRI DORIA: Okay. Thank you. Before going to Bertrand, I have a remote participation.

>> MODERATOR: Thanks. We have a question from Rudy at ISOC Belgium. The new GTLD programme, will the fact that we will have so many new participants have any impact on the rules and regulations guiding the Internet?

>> AVRI DORIA: Perhaps someone will want to give an answer. But I don’t think Bertrand is volunteering for that one at the moment. But please, Bertrand?


I wanted to follow up as Markus has said. I voluntarily provocatively said we need new framework, structure, and so on. What I mean by that is one thing we need to absolutely avoid is the notion that whatever governance framework for the users of the Internet be centralized in one structure of oversight. Even if it were a perfectly multistakeholder oversight of sorts, it should not be unique and centralized. Because the topics are different. And the reason why the governance infrastructure and institutional system for deinfrastructure works is because it’s a distributed system where there are network effect and balance and counterbalance. I do believe that we need to have new structures to address separately Freedom of Expression issues, privacy issues, copyright issues, involving the different institutions that already exist.


But the challenge is to bring the responsibilities of Governments, including what they should do, and the responsibilities of platforms regarding how they develop their terms of service.

>> AVRI DORIA: Thank you.

Now I’d like to take I guess it was Rudy’s question of the new GTLDs, bringing upon what was it.

>> Do we need to adopt the regulatory –

>> AVRI DORIA: I think Sebastian had before it was asked sort of indicated that there is a private organisation or a public interest organisation doing it. But I’d like to ask, does anyone else want to take a minute and offer an answer to Rudy’s question about whether one is needed, any changes felt to be needed in the regulatory process because of a thousand to two thousand new names in the Internet. Does anyone want to take up that question?

No one is.

So I would – okay. I do see it, a – please introduce yourself.

>> JACOB: Jacob from the (inaudible) Broadcasting Unit. Yes, I believe there is a huge number of cross points that need to be at least reflected not necessarily regulated, but at least reflected.

For instance, there is an impact of the new GTLD on the WIPO system and on the trademark protection, because we are a submission factor, a new kind of protection over world trademarks, so it’s very important to know how and that it’s done in a way that is correct or not.

The reason there is conflicting interests between different parts of the world, the principle, for instance, that these universally are accepted within ICANN of solving conflict through tenders and auction, I think that is completely unacceptable.


So there is a need and there is a space for doing so.

>> AVRI DORIA: So you believe there is a need, if I understand correctly, beyond just what ICANN itself can do.

Does anybody else wish to respond to that. Bertrand? One more time.

Somebody asked a question, we owed them a bit of talking on it.

>> BERTRAND CHAPELLE: Here, and in this case, as I’m an ICANN member, I don’t speak on behalf of the board here but as a mere member. One thing that is very, very important is something that was mentioned during the workshop that we did this afternoon, which is there is a huge danger that the domain name system begins to be considered as a content controlled panel. And that the separation of layers is now tinkered with, because a lot of actors see each of the domain names as a place for making a switch to say we take the domain name, so it’s the equivalent of acting on the content, and that’s not true. When we talk about regulations, it’s important that we keep the domain name system in the same category as what we do with the technical infrastructure of the pipes that circulate and the net neutrality thing. The domain system should not become a content control panel.


>> AVRI DORIA: Thank you. Now I’d like to, before going to our synthesis, I’d like to give each of the two panelists sort of a minute to say anything else that they have in summing up their positions, and in responding to any of the points that they have heard made over this.

So would either of you like to take a minute to sum up your position response to what we heard?

>> MACIEJ TOMASZEWSKI: As we spoke, we mentioned many times the multistakeholder approach. And as I said, it’s important to ensure that different actors involved in this model can act in areas they are responsible for, which is actually the language that we have. So I would just say that, please, as an official of public authority, do not have such a mistrust in us, because we also have a certain role we would like to perform for people who voted for politicians, and we would like to ensure that for the areas that we are responsible for, we can account.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Well, I agree with much that has been said in this room. I mean, it’s clearly not black and white. It’s nuanced. It’s different shades of gray. And I think the discussion here and the IGF as a whole and all the national, regional initiative prove actually the usefulness of having this kind of platform for dialogue where all stakeholders gather. And this gathering was particularly impressive. I mean, we have very high level, I think it’s the first time we had a majesty attending an IGF type meeting. So, you know, really the highest level political leaders discussing with the community, and that does not necessarily mean we agree on everything, but it certainly will help us. We will collectively move forward or stumble forward in the right direction, as Bill Clinton said at the ICANN meeting in San Francisco last year.

>> AVRI DORIA: Yes. It was really quite wonderful, interesting to have a member of the royalty here.

One thing as an aside, before I tweeted asking the question have there ever been royalty before at an IGF or any of the IGF derivatives? And the response I got back was you Americans, you’re so into royalty.

So, Wolfgang, I’d like to turn it over to you now to sort of give us a synthesis of where we’re at, after this hour or nearly one hour’s worth of discussion.

>> WOLFGANG KLEINWACHTER: What can I add after all of these wonderful statements? And by the way, if the world would be organised like EuroDIG, we would live in a paradise. It’s so wonderful that with all the old and young, we have a basic agreement, and we’re all happy that the Internet works, as Markus as said.

If I summarized it, I would have three questions: The what’s and the whos and the hows, which were discussed here.

Start with the what’s. I think there is an interesting agreement. This is different from six or seven years ago, the principles are useful. And it gives guidance and it’s not censorship. I think this was the understanding a couple years ago, if it comes to principles, then it means censorship. This is not the case. Principle is a positive thing, it gives you guidance. It helps you.

However, you have to be very careful about the unintended side effects. As Markus said, the devil is in the detail. So do not open boxes, you know, where then probably the wrong worms come out. But it means be very careful, but guidance is needed, and this is a clear message that comes from EuroDIG and will go to the IGF in Baku.

Who should produce this? I think it’s also a clear consensus, all stakeholders have to be involved. So it cannot be done by one group alone, for all of this has to be in a process where all stakeholders are involved, but they are transparent, inclusive. That means that all positions have to be heard. It’s similar to like an RFC is drafted. You start with an idea, you get input and then move it to a level of a Working Group so it’s more structured, and finally you have rough consensus.

I don’t suspect full consensus, there is no need. But rough consensus should be the aim among all stakeholders.

And this brings me to the more difficult question, the third question, the how to do this. And here I think we have two elements which I would differentiate. One is the format and the other one is the procedure. And I think for the two things we have to think out of the box to go beyond our traditional experiences.

If we come to the format, we normally think in categories like laws or treaties. These are the traditional formats that we have. But also the idea to have laws and treaties was the result of a historical process. And then, you know, this is a good format and we should sign the treaty and then to ratify. It was the result of a political process.

You know, treaties are negotiated among Governments only. That means if we have the multistakeholder approach, we have to think about new formats, you know, which – you know, we have a lot of this new vocabulary already, a statement of interest, affirmation of commitment, things like that. And I think we should really consider to find the right language to describe the nature of the principles we accrue in a multistakeholder process.

And the other thing is the procedure. You know, how you come to such, let’s say, a new innovative instrument which gives guidance. And here the nice word comes and it was referred to, the respective roles. I say this was the result of two years discussion in the Working Group on Internet Governance. This is the compromise. Everybody gets what they want. Nobody knew what the respective role is. We are struggling to understand. This is important. All sides tried to understand the old role in the context of the multistakeholder environment. So that means it’s not the master/slave relationship which you rejected and you were critical about oversight. So I think nobody wants to have this, but we understand that the role of Government is different from the civil society or the private sector.

Nobody wants to overtake the role of the society. But we have not yet procedures in place for the interaction of the various things, and this has to be developed.

I think Bertrand’s point was clear when he said that we have to recognize that there are two different worlds that are coming now together on the different layers. These are different things on the different layers. They were separated for over 20 years, this is fine, now they are coming together. And you see that there is some electricity between the two layers, and this has to be figured out how to manage this. And here we need a Protocol which allowed this cohabitation between the traditional interGovernment layer and the new interGovernment layer. And as Markus pointed out, unfortunately, the system of Internet governmental organisations emerged in a time where we had no Internet. This did not exist. So the question is now do we see that the intergovernmental organisations want to enhance or extend their procedures into the Internet world or will the Internet world try to undermine the intergovernmental organisations and to extend their principles to the intergovernmental world?

Or are we able to find a Protocol where – oops.

(Microphone fell off)

– where the various stakeholders and – this was my last point.

>> AVRI DORIA: Oh hold it and talk to it.

>> WOLFGANG KLEINWACHTER: Are we able to find this Protocol, which brings the stakeholder in a new qualitative interrelationship? This is a challenge and probably a message from Stockholm to Baku.

Thank you very much.

>> AVRI DORIA: I want to thank the speakers. I want to thank all of you that were the speakers.

I want to add one final point, which is this was my first EuroDIG, though I’ve been at all the IGFs and was at WSIS. One of the things that I’ve enjoyed seeing here is what someone said: You folks kind of trust your Government. You’ve got to remember I come from a place where we don’t.

So I’ve been very happy to be here this week and to listen to all the meetings, and was very happy to be able to moderate this one.

Thank you all. Thank you.


>> OLA BERGSTROM: We will start the wrap up session in just a few minutes, so please take your seats and we will just arrange things here at the stage.